Healthy Workplaces Summit 2013

1. Healthy Workplaces Summit 2013 Working together for OSH - successful organisational and individual interventions Rüdiger Trimpop, University of Jena

2. Topics • When and for whom is participation necessary? • Which hazards cant be reduced without participation? • Who needs which increased knowledge? • What is the perception of leadership?

3. Hierarchyofsuccess and participation! • Thereareapproachdifferences in OSH in Europe: • Northern Countries:Participation plus Leadership plus Work design • Middle Countries: Work design and Control plus Leadership • Southern and Eastern Countries: Person centered and Control • Comparison Former East vs. West Germany • Similarsafetystandards through different approaches • Participativeapproach versus technicalapproach

4. Change ofHazards and Loss Time In thepast, themajorfocus was on productionindustrywith a strong emphasis on avoidingworkaccidents. • This type ofaccidenthasdroppedsignificantly, partlybecauseofeffective OSH partlybecauseaccident-pronejobshavebeenautomatizedoroutsorced. Manysuccessful large companieshaveinstalled OSH Management Systems and changedthework design. Successfulsmallcompaniesrely on leadership and safetyadvicefrom outside. However, thefocusofHealth Promotion and Preservationisshifting!

5. New Threats! The twomajorsourcesfordeadlyaccidents and time loss in many European countries are: Occupationaltrafficaccidentshave not beenreduced and accountformorethan 50% of all deadlyaccidents. Tendencyrising! Occupational Stress accountsformanyhealthproblems and isrelatedto 40% oftheloss time forexample in Germany! These areashavegainedlittleprofitfromthework design approach in accidentpreventionoverthe last years.

7. Most companies do not address traffic accidents since they happen outside company properties and they feel they have no influence. Most state and insuranceagenciestreat all trafficaccidentsalikeas an errorofthedriveralone, thusignoringtheoccupationalcomponent, such as time pressure, lack ofsleep,increasedcommuting etc. Ourdatawith 2000 small and medium sizedcompanysclearlyshowoccupational stress asthemainpredictor, followedbyexposition and distraction! Occupationaltrafficsafety: relevance

8. Sometimespeoplemakewrongjudgements and errors!

9. Illness (Infections, Backproblems, Cardiovascular) 40% Accidents (Work) 10% Psychological factors (Stress, etc.) 40% Environment (Personal and Family Factors) 10% Reasonsfor Time Loss in Germany

11. Leadershippersonnelworks on average 10-15 hoursmore per week but: Leadershipis on averagelessill and liveslonger! Onekeydifferenceis- Influence on work and time! Stressparadox

12. Stress at Work Study on 147 Mio. workers in the EU (2009): • 52% say, theyworkunderhigh time pressure. • 33% havenoinfluence on theirworkprocedures. • 27% havenoinfluence on theirworkrhythm and breaks • 45% havemonotonoustasks, • 44% havenojob-rotation, • 50% haveshort, repetitive time-relevant tasks • 16% reportlittleornosupport through leadership and colleagues

13. Dimensionsof stress and strain in a comparisonstudy

14. Comparison Expert- vs- Participativestressoranalysiswith 356 people in 12 workunits

15. Take homemessages First takehomemessage: RiskAssessments through safetyexperts and employeesdiffersignificantly in relationto stress! Second take-homemessage Riskassessmentsfortrafficsafety and psychologicalhealthneedparticipativeapproachessincenobodyelseknowsthedangers on individual trips and whatisperceivedas stress!

16. RiskAssessmentsshouldincludeseveralfactors and involvethepeoplethatexperience and taketherisks! Oneapproachtothatis GUROM (www.gurom.de)GUROM is an adaptive online riskassessmentsfor organisational mobilitythatincludes stress and distraction!Itincudes a Hazard Profile forthe individual, thecompany and suggestionsforpreventivemeasures!

17. Most peopleperform a riskassessment and chosetheiractionsaccordingly!

18. Technichal /EnvironmentalFactor (road, vehicle) Organisational Factors (time pressure, leadership) PersonalFactors (riskinclination, experience) SituationalFactors (stress, weather, distraction) AccidentProbability Accidentsaretheresultofvariousinteractingfactors

19. GUROM has different modules Modul 1: Commutingtowork Modul 2: Commutingtoschool Modul 3: Travellingaspartofthejob Trucks, Taxis, Sales, Police, Fire-department, etc. Modul 4: Mobility withinthecompanyfork-lifts, bicycles, foot, trains Modul 5: Private mobility • www.GUROM.de

20. People getfeedbackabouttheirhazards in a profilcompaniesgetitanonymous 1 5 Your Value Yourcompany / orpopulationaverage and suggestionsforinterventionsfromour 600-Intervention database 1,5 3,7 3,2

21. All driverassistancetechniquesdrawunwantedbehaviouraladaptations (risk-compensation)

22. unlesstheyarespeciallydesigned! 4

23. Effectivemeasuresagainstoccupationaltrafficaccidents Gregersen, et al.(1996) examined 4000 driversoftheswedishTelekom, 1000 per interventionfor 1 year Accidentreduction in % Media only + 3% Lecture on thejob - 2% Psych/educ. driver-training-31% Traffic safetycircle-56%

24. Main Assumption: Usetheknowledgeoftheworkers/driverstoachievesafety! Circle participantsmakesuggestionstoreduceexposure, stress and distractions! The verticlecircleuptotheheadofthecompanydecides and performsthechanges. Leadership Circle Vertical Circle Worker Circle Traffic safetycircles

25. ExamplesofStructuralChanges: Reduced km when on duty through change in workprocedures Reduced telephoning on theroad through reroutingofwork Reduceddrivinghours through changeofresponsibilityforassets Less time pressure through changedleadershipbehaviour Standardisedload-check and carimprovements Traffic Safety Circles

26. Somebehaviouralresultsfromdrivingobservations (Data from13 companies, Projekt run through DVR) Controlgroup (dottedline) hasnochangeorincrease in drivingerrors Circle Group has a significantdecrease in observeddrivingerrors

27. Someattidudinalresultsfromtrafficsafetycircles (13 Companies, dottedlines: comparisongroup; straightlines: circlegroups) Controlgroup (dottedline) hasnochangeorincrease in risk-inclination Circle Group has a significantdecrease in riskinclination

28. 289 Items for 5 generalfactors, leaders, work-councils, and medicaldoctorsfrom 400 companieswereusedformatchedvalidation External Factors General Corporate Conditions Person Activity Effectiveness

29. Timeline of the study analysis/ documentation preparation/ test first surveybasic study 1st follow-up surveybasic study 2nd follow-up surveybasic study in-depth & validation study 3rd follow-up survey Short versions of the basic study & the in-depth & validation study in-depth & validation study as per May 2006

30. Estimatesabouteffectiveness in psychological stress reduction

31. Fields ofacitivity Exploratory Factor analysis (EFA) with varimax rotation. Explained variance: 48%

32. Fields ofeffectiveness Exploratory Factor analysis (EFA) with varimax rotation. Explained variance: 48%

33. Access to TOP-Leadershipisthekeytosuccess Ifthereislessaccesstoleadership (darkerblue), effectivenessisreduced

34. EconomicUsefulnessof human-centeredwork design and safetyculturerankedby 400 leaders p<.001,

36. Take homemessages Third takehomemessage: Psychological factorsarecurrently not addressedwith professional competence in mostcompanies! Fourthtake-homemessage Thereis a large numberofevaluated and successfulinterventions in Europe thatarebased on participation and haveproventoreduceaccidents and illnesses!

37. Conclusions • Participation in many modern areas of OSH is absolutely essential for success Human centered work design is recognized by leadership as economically useful, in spite of contradicting behaviour Ifwecoordinate, cooperate and participate in ourexpertises, wecan handle evencomplexsystems!

38. The British waytosolvecomplexity!

40. Thankyouforyourattention! ruediger.trimpop@uni-jena.de